Search

There has been much debate surrounding diagnostic strategies and the most appropriate training models for novices in oral radiology. It has been argued that an analytic approach, using a step-by-step analysis of the radiographic features of an abnormality, is ideal. Alternative research suggests that novices can successfully employ non-analytic reasoning. Many of these studies do not take instructional methodology into account. This study evaluated the effectiveness of non-analytic and analytic strategies in radiographic interpretation and explored the relationship between instructional methodology and diagnostic strategy. Second-year dental and dental hygiene students were taught four radiographic abnormalities using basic science instructions or a step-by-step algorithm. The students were tested on diagnostic accuracy and memory immediately after learning and one week later. A total of seventy-three students completed both immediate and delayed sessions and were included in the analysis. Students were randomly divided into two instructional conditions: one group provided a diagnostic hypothesis for the image and then identified specific features to support it, while the other group first identified features and then provided a diagnosis. Participants in the diagnosis-first condition (non-analytic reasoning) had higher diagnostic accuracy then those in the features-first condition (analytic reasoning), regardless of their learning condition. No main effect of learning condition or interaction with diagnostic strategy was observed. Educators should be mindful of the potential influence of analytic and non-analytic approaches on the effectiveness of the instructional method.

Educational research suggests that cognitive processing in diagnostic radiology requires a solid foundation in the basic sciences and knowledge of the radiological changes associated with disease. Although it is generally assumed that dental students must acquire both sets of knowledge, little is known about the most effective way to teach them. Currently, the basic and clinical sciences are taught separately. This study was conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy of students when taught basic sciences segregated or integrated with clinical features. Predoctoral dental students (n=51) were taught four confusable intrabony abnormalities using basic science descriptions integrated with the radiographic features or taught segregated from the radiographic features. The students were tested with diagnostic images, and memory tests were performed immediately after learning and one week later. On immediate and delayed testing, participants in the integrated basic science group outperformed those from the segregated group. A main effect of learning condition was found to be significant (p

There has been much debate surrounding diagnostic strategies and the most appropriate training models for novices in oral radiology. It has been argued that an analytic approach, using a step-by-step analysis of the radiographic features of an abnormality, is ideal. Alternative research suggests that novices can successfully employ non-analytic reasoning. Many of these studies do not take instructional methodology into account. This study evaluated the effectiveness of non-analytic and analytic strategies in radiographic interpretation and explored the relationship between instructional methodology and diagnostic strategy. Second-year dental and dental hygiene students were taught four radiographic abnormalities using basic science instructions or a step-by-step algorithm. The students were tested on diagnostic accuracy and memory immediately after learning and one week later. A total of seventy-three students completed both immediate and delayed sessions and were included in the analysis. Students were randomly divided into two instructional conditions: one group provided a diagnostic hypothesis for the image and then identified specific features to support it, while the other group first identified features and then provided a diagnosis. Participants in the diagnosis-first condition (non-analytic reasoning) had higher diagnostic accuracy then those in the features-first condition (analytic reasoning), regardless of their learning condition. No main effect of learning condition or interaction with diagnostic strategy was observed. Educators should be mindful of the potential influence of analytic and non-analytic approaches on the effectiveness of the instructional method.

Educational research suggests that cognitive processing in diagnostic radiology requires a solid foundation in the basic sciences and knowledge of the radiological changes associated with disease. Although it is generally assumed that dental students must acquire both sets of knowledge, little is known about the most effective way to teach them. Currently, the basic and clinical sciences are taught separately. This study was conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy of students when taught basic sciences segregated or integrated with clinical features. Predoctoral dental students (n=51) were taught four confusable intrabony abnormalities using basic science descriptions integrated with the radiographic features or taught segregated from the radiographic features. The students were tested with diagnostic images, and memory tests were performed immediately after learning and one week later. On immediate and delayed testing, participants in the integrated basic science group outperformed those from the segregated group. A main effect of learning condition was found to be significant (p0.05). The results of this study support the critical role of integrating biomedical knowledge in diagnostic radiology and shows that teaching basic sciences integrated with clinical features produces higher diagnostic accuracy in novices than teaching basic sciences segregated from clinical features.